Mother who killed her 3 children visited 50 times by social services (Upsetting content).

[InsanityandBeyond]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544146/Children-kept-horrific-conditions-drowned-pregnant-mother-visited-social-workers-FIFTY-times-council-failed-act.html

Controversial question but should fathers in this situation be prosecuted for child neglect as they have left their children in these situations. Shouldn't they be be responsible in ensuring their children are not at risk of harm even from their own mothers?

Incidents like this seem to be becoming more common. What should be done if families like this 'refuse' to engage with SS? Shouldn't the children's welfare come before the mother's rights? A similar case is this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424335/Amanda-Hutton-starved-son-death-claimed-child-be...

Horrifying .

Sharaluck, exactly, the 'neglect' happened after they were born - SS were proven right. She abused her children and went on to kill them - do you honestly believe that she did that to spite them and prove them right in their assessment of her? I don't think it would have made a blind bit of difference. She had the mindset of a murderer, how can you negotiate with that. The only solution that would've saved these children would've been their removal from her presence!

50 visits isn't a lot. It is once every 3 weeks for 3 years. That is the problem with ss, they should be doing more support and education and less policing.

Goldenbear the ss cp orders were there before the children were even born. They tried to preven this disaster but the law failed them.

SS work with families long term, Daddy of one, some families can have 100s of visits to ensure that they are making improvements, monitor changes and adapt new strategies to ensure a positive outcome

Yes I know the law failed them and I know the protection orders were in place before they were born. My response was spefically relating to points made by Sharaluck. This woman committed the ultimate act of violence- murder and towards her own children. I think if she was of that mindset prior to having children as murder is a very extreme act it will not have been triggered by SS's 'overeaction' as Sharaluck assumes!

Can I just say that, for every story like this, there are many stories we don't hear about because SW, midwives, Child Protection people have managed to successfully intervene. Not only by taking the children into care (the nuclear option) but because the lower-level interventions of support and education have been offered, accepted and implemented.

Those "saves" can never make the news (it would be breaching confidentiality for a start, and "saves" are not news, because "nothing" has "happened" except for normal lives, rolling forwards) and it's a shame, really, because we get a ridiculously skewed view of the work that child protection people, social workers and so on do - and what they achieve.

What a breath of fresh air, catfromjapan. :)

Goldenbear I wish we knew why they wanted to prevent her keeping the baby in the first place as I think that is the crux of the matter.

It was clearly a tragedy waiting to happen.

Good point catfromjapan - I think that's such a problem for the social work profession. I wonder if social work organisations could work with representatives from the media and/or government to address this aspect?

Boneyback no I don't want to turn this into a sexist debate - I was merely saying that no matter what your personal aspect as a parent is (victim or no) you are still a parent. Those children do not stop being your responsibility, unless you decide to hand them over to someone more capable (in itself possibly the most responsible thing either parent could have done here).

I am happy to hold into account the father's problems, although it won't distract from the fact he had some responsibility here. Can you state what they were? All of his suspected MH issues?

Yes Juggling it would be nice if SOMEONE who is in charge of this country could put out some figures on how many children have been 'saved', seeing as there is so much mis-information on 'snatching' and the ever present 'forced' adoption (which is a label applicable to cases where the child has been rightfully removed but the abusive parents refuse to hand over rights for the child to be adopted into a loving family).

I think we have to take it as given that most parents want to have a happy family for their children. When ss get involved the first thing they will want to tap into is the positive human trait of protection of their own. I am sure there are many cases of success but I am certain there would be a lot more if victims of abuse were able to learn about healthy relationships before they had their own. Perhaps this is what ss were hoping for when they tried to prevent this mother from keeping her first child.

Also think it would be good if we, as a society, could move more towards enabling those parents who are unable to cope with the challenging demands of parenting, to see working with social services and possibly letting their children be fostered by another family if that is for the best, as the most sensible and responsible way forwards.
I think there could be some helpful changes in the culture around all of this, even though legislation sometimes needs to come into play too.

The sad thing is that the only MP who seems interested has a bone to grind with SS himself and has spent at least a decade setting up blogs and websites to scare the public by guessing at figures of 'forced' adoption (without fully explaining what that could and does entail) and telling the press that LA's get money for 'snatching' babies for adoption (without taking into account how much it then costs that LA to have a baby in care and legally arrange an adoption, which is a far far greater cost). Until some more MP's pull together and take this on to project a clear and non-bias presentation to the public, nothing will change. Next week or the month after JH will pop up again saying how he has had to pay a family to leave the country because they were being investigated for something they claim not to do, and it all starts again. No one ever points the finger to him and asks how he KNOWS that he isn't merely aiding abusive parents to continue their abuse in another country. Apparently this doesn't worry anyone.

Lioninthesun

"I am happy to hold into account the father's problems, although it won't distract from the fact he had some responsibility here. Can you state what they were? All of his suspected MH issues?"

I can't state what they where, but neither can posters state what the MH situation was, yet her "vulnerability" is taken as a fact. Someone even posted that she must have been scared of what the Bf would do.

Does the father have responsibility for the children?
yes he does, he was still visiting them and had not abstained from responsibility.
Did he murder them or was he responsible for their murder?

No he wasn't, he wasn't there when it happened, but then NRPs are not always there.

Women who are victims of domestic violence and also parents are held responsible for their childrens welfare.

Women are victims of domestic violence and do not take meaningful action to change the situation have losing parental rights as a consequence.

TheXxed
"Women who are victims of domestic violence and also parents are held responsible for their childrens welfare."

But not held responsible for there murder at the hands of the father.

Hello boney I don't think I made myself very clear in post.

I was not implying the father should be criminally liable for the deaths of his children.

I was simply pointing out to those who perceive a gender imbalance in these cases that women are held to account.

TheXxed

Sorry, you are not but others on here are, many on this thread see the father as "culpable".